Ok I know this has been discussed to death

[whadyousay?]

What is the general consensus on DV'ing after the initial 30 days?

 

Do I loose some rights or what is the downfall of DV'ing after 30 days?

 

Yes I have been reading but there seems to be conflicting opinions.

 

Maybe someone can clarify for me.

 

Thanks

[pryan67]

nothing in the law says that you can only DV during the first 30 days....

 

 

nothing in the law says that a CA MUST validate regardless of whether it's within or outside of the first 30 days.

 

 

FDCPA was written to controll CAs...NOT to control or limit consumers

[whadyousay?]

Ok thanks I have a ca with midland and my first DV has not came back was just

wondering if the 30 days to reply dunne had anything to do with it.

 

I had been reading a lot of info on the subject in diff threads and there was some debate

on the subject. Thanks for clearing it up.

Edited March 24, 2006 by whadyousay?

[jcjackson]

Just fyi, if you're out of SOL, you might try a version of WhyChat's SOL letter. I sent one to midland, and they deleted from all 3 CRA's, and sent me written confirmation.

[whadyousay?]

Yeah but I am kind of playing with fire not out of sol yet.

 

But I've already got a few violations already maybe a little weak, reporting as open account, factoring company. And I'm trying to be really stupid in my letters to them so they won't validate

so maybe if they did take me to court I could say they would not provide me with validation

to prove I owed etc. ect.

 

The account is only about 750ish so I am hoping it will not be worth it to take to court.

[Cheryl1968]

Yeah but I am kind of playing with fire not out of sol yet.

 

But I've already got a few violations already maybe a little weak, reporting as open account, factoring company. And I'm trying to be really stupid in my letters to them so they won't validate

so maybe if they did take me to court I could say they would not provide me with validation

to prove I owed etc. ect.

 

The account is only about 750ish so I am hoping it will not be worth it to take to court.

 

 

Have you disputed it with the CRA's yet?

[whadyousay?]

Hey cheryl

 

Yes I have disputed first with a blanket a long time ago now with "I have never had an open acct

with this company".

 

We'll see how it goes.

[StupidCredit]

nothing in the law says that a CA MUST validate regardless of whether it's within or outside of the first 30 days.

 

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

9th circuit interprets this to mean that upon notice of a timely dispute, verification is required not optional.

 

A few things to keep in mind:

 

1) 30 days starts when you receive the 30 day notice. It's not 30 days from the date of the letter.

2) If you dispute outside of that 30 day window, you have no protections under 1692g. This should not keep you from disputing, but CAs have the statute and plenty of caselaw on their side that says they are not required to obtain verification.

3) Once a dispute is on file, timely or not, they are required to communicate that information to all parties. 1692e(8) still requires them to communicate that the debt is disputed.

4) There is no statutory time limit for them to REPLY to your dispute except in Texas.

 

You should definitely still dispute if you are passed that window, but your tactics are slightly different.

Edited March 24, 2006 by StupidCredit

[whadyousay?]

Well I used to talk on the phone with them all the time pre cb this is DH's account.

I really don't recall ever recieving anything from them used to just through stuff like that

away.

[normal1]

Threads like these are what confuse the heck out of me. I've sent DV to 3 cra's (small collection debts over 2 years old) and I read somewhere that you could do (as part of 1-2 Punch) is send the CRA a dispute so that when the CRA contacts the CA the CA wouldnt be able to verify because supposedbly they were supposed to stop all collection activities. Now this thread appears to put this in a big question mark for me.

 

[amandal0514]

I disputed all of our collections regardless of whether they were in or out of SOL and NOBODY was able to validate and all of them are now deleted.

 

Only thing on my report is an old CO from Providian (which they provided all the paperwork on! but 7 years is up this year) and 1 medical collection that I'm probably going to get removed within a week or so (waiting on TU to respond, EX and EQ have already deleted).

Edited March 24, 2006 by dreamn34

[cleancredit2004]

4) There is no statutory time limit for them to REPLY to your dispute except in Texas.

 

 

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree with this. I do think that the CAs must respond or delete 30 days after a dispute is initiated without regard to the initial 30 day dunning period. Read the FCRA 623 (8)(E)

Edited March 24, 2006 by cleancredit2004

[whadyousay?]

Threads like these are what confuse the heck out of me. I've sent DV to 3 cra's (small collection debts over 2 years old) and I read somewhere that you could do (as part of 1-2 Punch) is send the CRA a dispute so that when the CRA contacts the CA the CA wouldnt be able to verify because supposedbly they were supposed to stop all collection activities. Now this thread appears to put this in a big question mark for me.

 

 

Don't be confused your right, I just need to know about the 30 day window after a CA sends you

a dunn letter.

[whadyousay?]

nothing in the law says that a CA MUST validate regardless of whether it's within or outside of the first 30 days.

 

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

9th circuit interprets this to mean that upon notice of a timely dispute, verification is required not optional.

 

A few things to keep in mind:

 

1) 30 days starts when you receive the 30 day notice. It's not 30 days from the date of the letter.

2) If you dispute outside of that 30 day window, you have no protections under 1692g. This should not keep you from disputing, but CAs have the statute and plenty of caselaw on their side that says they are not required to obtain verification.

3) Once a dispute is on file, timely or not, they are required to communicate that information to all parties. 1692e(8) still requires them to communicate that the debt is disputed.

4) There is no statutory time limit for them to REPLY to your dispute except in Texas.

 

You should definitely still dispute if you are passed that window, but your tactics are slightly different.

 

Thanks stupid credit, Especially for the links in your siggy.

[Cheryl1968]

Hey cheryl

 

Yes I have disputed first with a blanket a long time ago now with "I have never had an open acct

with this company".

 

We'll see how it goes.

 

 

Just keeep your paper trial going and you will probably end up with enough to make them delete.

[texasnightowl]

4) There is no statutory time limit for them to REPLY to your dispute except in Texas.

 

You should definitely still dispute if you are passed that window, but your tactics are slightly different.

 

Could you point me to the Texas code on that? I'm still making my way through some of the links in the Texas thread for laws...

[pryan67]

nothing in the law says that a CA MUST validate regardless of whether it's within or outside of the first 30 days.

 

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

9th circuit interprets this to mean that upon notice of a timely dispute, verification is required not optional.

 

A few things to keep in mind:

 

1) 30 days starts when you receive the 30 day notice. It's not 30 days from the date of the letter.

2) If you dispute outside of that 30 day window, you have no protections under 1692g. This should not keep you from disputing, but CAs have the statute and plenty of caselaw on their side that says they are not required to obtain verification.

3) Once a dispute is on file, timely or not, they are required to communicate that information to all parties. 1692e(8) still requires them to communicate that the debt is disputed.

4) There is no statutory time limit for them to REPLY to your dispute except in Texas.

 

You should definitely still dispute if you are passed that window, but your tactics are slightly different.

 

 

you left out part of FDCPA:

 

( If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector

 

 

 

 

9th circuit notwithstanding, I don't believe that they MUST provide validation...

 

 

however, if you DV them, and they DO verify it, they're in vioaltion of FCRA (reporting information which they know, or should know, to be inaccurate, not marking as in dispute, etc)

[Bruski]

4) There is no statutory time limit for them to REPLY to your dispute except in Texas.

 

So what is the time limit in Texas then?

[jayp]

What is the general consensus on DV'ing after the initial 30 days?

 

Do I loose some rights or what is the downfall of DV'ing after 30 days?

 

Yes I have been reading but there seems to be conflicting opinions.

 

Maybe someone can clarify for me.

 

Thanks

 

So if you send a DV to a CA (past the initial 30days) and they don't respond what is the correct corse of action? Send again until you get USPS frequent shipper card? Contact CRA? Show up at their doors with your CR in hand demanding action?

[captaincredit]

What is the general consensus on DV'ing after the initial 30 days?

 

Do I loose some rights or what is the downfall of DV'ing after 30 days?

 

Yes I have been reading but there seems to be conflicting opinions.

 

Maybe someone can clarify for me.

 

Thanks

 

So if you send a DV to a CA (past the initial 30days) and they don't respond what is the correct corse of action? Send again until you get USPS frequent shipper card? Contact CRA? Show up at their doors with your CR in hand demanding action?

 

If they cease collection activity, then the correct course of action is to do nothing.

 

They can choose to simply indefinately cease collection activity, as opposed to validating.

[jayp]

What is the general consensus on DV'ing after the initial 30 days?

 

Do I loose some rights or what is the downfall of DV'ing after 30 days?

 

Yes I have been reading but there seems to be conflicting opinions.

 

Maybe someone can clarify for me.

 

Thanks

 

So if you send a DV to a CA (past the initial 30days) and they don't respond what is the correct corse of action? Send again until you get USPS frequent shipper card? Contact CRA? Show up at their doors with your CR in hand demanding action?

 

If they cease collection activity, then the correct course of action is to do nothing.

 

They can choose to simply indefinately cease collection activity, as opposed to validating.

 

I sent at the end of Jan. 1 said pretty much you got us, we have no proof and sent the debt back to the OC and I settled there. The other 2 (both medical) never replied but they have verified with the CRA. So can they do this or should I contact them again.

[stickyfingers]

This turned out to be a good thread on the topic...new folks should enjoy stumbling into this one...

[StupidCredit]

you left out part of FDCPA:

 

( If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector

 

9th circuit notwithstanding, I don't believe that they MUST provide validation...

 

however, if you DV them, and they DO verify it, they're in vioaltion of FCRA (reporting information which they know, or should know, to be inaccurate, not marking as in dispute, etc)

I didn't forget.

 

The ruling of the 9th circuit was that, since the suit was brought under 1692g(a)(4), the language clearly stated that they must provide verification. 1692g( is an extra protection.

 

The plain language of 1692g(a)(4) says the the CA WILL obtain verification. Not might or if they feel like it or not if they cease collection. That is the law in the 9th circuit.

 

Yes they must cease collection of the debt, but they must also obtain verificaton.

 

Providing verification of the debt is not a collection activity, or alternatively it would be considered activity exempt from the cease collection provision of 1692g(.

 

Now in the 7th circuit, the law is that they are allowed to cease collection completely and that is acceptable. IIRC, that was a ruling on 1692g(, and the 9th circuit distinguished their ruling from the 7th circuit since it was brought under 1692g(a)(4).

[StupidCredit]

4) There is no statutory time limit for them to REPLY to your dispute except in Texas.

 

So what is the time limit in Texas then?

They have 30 days to respond.

 

From my reading of that statute, their response does not HAVE to be verification. They just have to respond in some meaningful way IE cease collection or here is verification or we got your dispute and are looking into it.

[whadyousay?]

See this is what happens I'm not a legal mind.

 

I feel so stupid

 

I am really trying to understand this.

 

So I sent midland a DV, they have not responded yet. So if they don't respond they have to

cease collection activity until they send me verification of the debt.

Even though I did not respond after the original 30 day notice in the mail.

 

I still think someone really good at this sort of thing could argue the point that they

did not receive the initial communication via mail since they don't send cmrrr.

Or because they no longer lived at the address that it was sent to.

 

That just seems wrong for that 30 day period to actually have that much weight

since there are so many variables to consider.